It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In support of Intelligent Design

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life......."
www.ideacenter.org...

Again, from my eccentric viewpoint, scientific observation shows Evolution - And Intelligent Design says it has a meaning.

Everything that occurs in nature and the universe is based upon cause and effect and all causes and effects that can be
perceived by an intelligent mind must be based upon some form of intelligent action


There is no way you can completely separate your mind from what you are observing and if it is perceived by the
mind of an intelligent being it must posses properties of Intelligent Design


Remove God and the Bible from creationism and you are left with ID.

ID is for people that can't figure out which God to worship.




posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life......."
www.ideacenter.org...

Again, from my eccentric viewpoint, scientific observation shows Evolution - And Intelligent Design says it has a meaning.

Everything that occurs in nature and the universe is based upon cause and effect and all causes and effects that can be
perceived by an intelligent mind must be based upon some form of intelligent action


There is no way you can completely separate your mind from what you are observing and if it is perceived by the
mind of an intelligent being it must posses properties of Intelligent Design


ID is not a scientific theory. It doesn't meet the standard.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: logicsoda


I said the exact opposite of this in many ways. In fact just what to you mean by intelligent?

I was addressing your claim that there is somehow more proof for intelligent design than for random change in asking you for proof, which you provided none.



Well for one you haphazardly read what I said and somehow did not read it at all just started writing some things which I did not say.

No. I quote what you said and addressed it accordingly. You said that there was more proof for haphazard design than for intelligent design, so I was asking you for the proof that you are describing--the proof of haphazard design. The proof that you said those things is in your own posts.


Its like I was talking about cheeseburgers and you sunddenly burst out saying " I like oranges" To which I would reply...Thats nice but the topic is cheeseburgers.

Um, not at all. I was addressing the points that you were making about there being "proof" for design, whether it be haphazard or no.




That is not possible, that is quite obvious...Duh! That would imply perfections.

Elaborate on what you mean, please.


And perfections do not exist in nature or anywhere else.

I'm not entirely sure as to whether or not I agree with you on "anywhere else", but so far as we understand perfection in nature... it doesn't seem that it exists, no.


In fact even if there was some sort of all knowing and all powerful entity out there, it still would not be able to create a perfect thing.

How do you know?



What I am merely saying is that its also highly likely that some species some millions of years ago may have wondered by our little lonely somewhat blue world on a binge tour of the galaxy, and maybe somehow may have jacked off into the the ocean, which released its spermy life giving wonderton potential all through out the deeps, and then somehow millions of years later it lead to the first life in the oceans and eventually lead all of life that you see today.

How is it highly likely AT ALL? We have no evidence of other species elsewhere in the universe... so please explain.


For all you know we have some space traveling jack off to thank for being here experiencing the wonders of typing words on a screen and all the magical experiences that entail.

For all I know, possibly... but there is no evidence for anything of that nature. That's all conjecture.



Me: I suppose we really are made in his image.

What the funk are you talking about? What does any of this have to do with gods or god or even any higher intelligence or being at all?

You said that we were all created in "his image", so I was asking if children born with chronic illnesses, etc... were part of his image (the creator/intelligence/whatever you referring to as being "he").


But if any of those things or entities did exist. I am pretty sure they would care about any of those things about as much as you would care about a toad or a fish born with some chronic illness or horrific defects,

How are you pretty sure about that?


So in that respect the respect that they would not give a flying # or two #z about any of us or would even notice any of this unless it was somehow benefiting them or intruding on something in there day.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions.

edit on 8-8-2016 by logicsoda because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
The best part is how we make a telescope strong enough to really give us a look at how alone we are, how irrelevant, and then we turn around and look at magazines and facebook and cute little quotes on pictures and say 'all this for nothing? It has to mean something'. because then i imagine a group of velociraptors engaged in a similar discussion...moments before the universe informs them very brutally exactly how it feels about the chunk of space debris we call home. and thats ignoring several other extinction level events.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
You cannot counter-point a religious based statement with a science based statement. It is like saying "Red is my favorite color, what is yours?" and the reply is "8".

There is no place in Science for creationism, just like there is no place in creationism for a 4.5 billion year old Earth.

Live and let live because history shows us that it will most likely remain that way.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

What does Atheism have to do with science or any of my replies? I'm not an Atheist,my name isn't Pete and I'm not trying to sway anything. But you would know that if you learned how to read. The only thing you have shown with your replies is that you don't know how to read and that you don't understand any of the science that you consistently lie and make false claims about while pointing fingers and making ludicrous, asinine statements with no basis in reality. At this point, you're back to your usual game of playing 'Troll under the Bridge". SOP for the scientifically Illiterate I guess. Enjoy your weekend.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

To an extent that is all true. However, when I reply to someone like Whereislogic or raggedymandingo, its not for their benefit that I reply and attempt to give the appropriate science. It is for the people who lurk these forums without posting. The ones who may not have their mind boxed into a corner with no escape. They deserve to see both sides of the equation here so that if they are so inclined, they have the tools available to engage in due diligence and look into the questions and answers themselves and formulate their own opinions. This is a discussion forum on a public message board. The live and let live forum hasn't been proposed yet on ATS to my knowledge so as long as people are posting flat out lies, I'm going to call them out on it in case someone who has yet to make up their mind on the issue sees those lies and believes them.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
You cannot counter-point a religious based statement with a science based statement. It is like saying "Red is my favorite color, what is yours?" and the reply is "8".

Not really. If the religious-based statement is a fact claim then it of course can be countered with a scientific response.

Religious person: "Women were made from the rib of a man as it is said in the Holy Bible."
Scientific person: "False. The process of how 'women' were created is much more complex than that. Here's what science shows thus far...."



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Excellent reply. You never know who's watching, who may take a genuine interest in real science and pursue it. It's not all in vain.

Also, there's an historical record in these threads - very redundant as we respond to the same questions on multiple occasions - but several of the real science topics have been delved into and could be used for reference. I probably should update the ATS library with those topics.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: charlyv

To an extent that is all true. However, when I reply to someone like Whereislogic or raggedymandingo, its not for their benefit that I reply and attempt to give the appropriate science. It is for the people who lurk these forums without posting. The ones who may not have their mind boxed into a corner with no escape. They deserve to see both sides of the equation here so that if they are so inclined, they have the tools available to engage in due diligence and look into the questions and answers themselves and formulate their own opinions. This is a discussion forum on a public message board. The live and let live forum hasn't been proposed yet on ATS to my knowledge so as long as people are posting flat out lies, I'm going to call them out on it in case someone who has yet to make up their mind on the issue sees those lies and believes them.



Name calling, that's is an indication that you are in fear, what's there to be afraid of if you have all that scientific evidence on your side
That's right, you have none

Appropriate science doesn't start with "we assume"

Evolution is flat out lies, squat evidence, nothing, nothing at all, grasping at theory made up hundreds of years ago

and having to call me names, (surely raggedyman is bad enough), you have nothing and you know it

If anyone reading this hasn't made up their minds, ask for evidence, empirical evidence and listen to the atheists knees knock

Evolution is not a science, it's a religion for atheists



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: charlyv
You cannot counter-point a religious based statement with a science based statement. It is like saying "Red is my favorite color, what is yours?" and the reply is "8".

Not really. If the religious-based statement is a fact claim then it of course can be countered with a scientific response.

Religious person: "Women were made from the rib of a man as it is said in the Holy Bible."
Scientific person: "False. The process of how 'women' were created is much more complex than that. Here's what science shows thus far...."


Scientific person "false. The process of how...science shows thus far.....what

You left it blank, nothing, why
It's because that is all you have got, nothing, as stupid as a rib sounds it's more than nothing, the nothing science has got, nothing at all

Update the ats library with, evolution has no evidence, still




posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: charlyv
You cannot counter-point a religious based statement with a science based statement. It is like saying "Red is my favorite color, what is yours?" and the reply is "8".

Not really. If the religious-based statement is a fact claim then it of course can be countered with a scientific response.

Religious person: "Women were made from the rib of a man as it is said in the Holy Bible."
Scientific person: "False. The process of how 'women' were created is much more complex than that. Here's what science shows thus far...."


Scientific person "false. The process of how...science shows thus far.....what

You left it blank, nothing, why
It's because that is all you have got, nothing, as stupid as a rib sounds it's more than nothing, the nothing science has got, nothing at all

Update the ats library with, evolution has no evidence, still


The evidence for evolution is overwhelming... if you honestly believe to the contrary then you are being willfully ignorant. The reason as to why women extends much further beyond "they have two X chromosomes" so it is not that science has nothing, rather the answer is pretty complex.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Evolution is flat out lies, squat evidence, nothing, nothing at all, grasping at theory made up hundreds of years ago

Firstly, it appears that you are confusing the more colloquial use of the term "theory" with how it is used in science. A scientific theory is an explanation of a thing in nature which is well-substantiated with bodies of evidence that adheres to the tenets of empiricism. There is no "squat evidence"--there is an abundance of evidence. I encourage you to take a visit to a museum of natural history and learn about the evolution of us as humans and our intermediates; additionally, if it's evidence that you seek... look at experiments conducted on viruses and drosophilia melanogaster (fruit flies), just off of the top of my head.


and having to call me names, (surely raggedyman is bad enough), you have nothing and you know it

Interesting. What do you have?


If anyone reading this hasn't made up their minds, ask for evidence, empirical evidence and listen to the atheists knees knock

My knees aren't knocking and I am more than willing to point you in the right direction for empirical evidence. Also, check out this Wikipedia article on experimental evolution.

en.wikipedia.org...


Evolution is not a science, it's a religion for atheists

This demonstrates a couple of things:
1.) You clearly do not know what a science is.
2.) You clearly do not know what a religion is.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Two complex for you to understand and explain, not to hard to believe though

a reply to: logicsoda



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: logicsoda

Dogs turning into dogs, flys into flys, wow, I am speechless

This demonstrates you don't know what faith is, believing based on no evidence, you believe micro evolution turns into macro evolution

You have not offered any empirical evidence, just a link to micro evolution.
Nothing, just a journey of faith, there is no evidence micro turns into macro, off you go I will be here
edit on 8-8-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman




Name calling, that's is an indication that you are in fear, what's there to be afraid of if you have all that scientific evidence on your side
That's right, you have none


Isn't it time for you to clean under your bridge or something? Besides, you keep referring to me as Pete and an Atheist. I thought we were on such friendly terms that we were able to keep it light and congenial amongst ourselves. If you're so threatened by a little humor what does that say about YOUR position? Not much I'm afraid. Especially when you don't read or address my replies to you. You only pipe up on my replies to others.


Appropriate science doesn't start with "we assume"


Modern Evolutionary Synthesis doesnt begin with "we assume" either so by your degenerative standards it must be the pinnacle of scientific achievement.


Evolution is flat out lies, squat evidence, nothing, nothing at all, grasping at theory made up hundreds of years ago


If by hundreds of years ago you mean "first published 167 years ago" then sure. I don't know what the time frame within which a Scientific Theory is put forth has to do with the validity of said Theory aside from the fact that over the last 167 years SO much corroborating data has been confirmed, that it has a far more solid basis supporting it now than at any time in the past. You don't actually think your responses through before hitting the reply button do you?


and having to call me names, (surely raggedyman is bad enough), you have nothing and you know it


If you really believed that you would address my replies to you and address what specifically is wrong with the science instead of making blanket statements. Everyone with a library card and elementary school reading skills knows you are completely incapable of doing so.


If anyone reading this hasn't made up their minds, ask for evidence, empirical evidence and listen to the atheists knees knock


No. That doesn't happen. People reply and give you the information you ask for and you then refuse to read it or address the evidence presented as you wave your hand as if you're performing a Jedi Mind Trick and dismiss it by claiming that you've heard it all before blah blah blah. You're a sad, tired, broken record. If there is no basis to it why do you refuse to address the actual science? Ever? Why are all of your supporting citations from evangelical religious sites? Surely if the science is so filled with flaws and errors, then shouldn't there be dissenting science, written by people with backgrounds in applicable fields readily available and overflowing peer reviewed journals and legitimate science based sites? It's pretty pathetic that you have to lie to rationalize your life of confirmation bias and ignorance. As I've said more times than I can count, anytime you want to address the science and tell me what the specific errors are without blanket statements, please feel free. You know you won't because you can't. This means your only potential retort is further lies while claiming that MES is a centuries old conspiracy by Atheists because that's far easier to do than actually educating yourself and addressing the science.


Evolution is not a science, it's a religion for atheists


Then why are so many prominent supporters of it religious? Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism. But then you would have to learn critical thinking skills and actually read what the data says to understand that.


The only people who have nothing to contribute to this discussion are yourself and Whereislogic.

Here's an idea, since you won't address rebuttals to your own claims, how about addressing the OP's questions instead of continuously derailing their thread?



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

dude. you are wasting your time and energy. dont feed the trolls.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Two complex for you to understand and explain, not to hard to believe though

a reply to: logicsoda


If that's what you wish to believe, I suppose.


This demonstrates you don't know what faith is, believing based on no evidence, you believe micro evolution turns into macro evolution

Well, it is not that I have a belief based on no evidence--there is evidence, which is physiological commonality amongst different species, and DNA commonality. For example, chimpanzees are not humans... they are an entirely different species of animal, yet we share a 98% DNA commonality with them. This strongly suggests a common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees. Another interesting thing is how in the embryonic stages of humans and chickens there exists a pharyngeal pouch which is spectacularly similar to pharyngeal gill slits in fish. This suggests that not only do humans and chickens share an ancestor, but also that humans and chickens share a common ancestor with fish. An extremely fascinating book on this topic is actually called "Your Inner Fish". It is quite remarkable and I hope you look into reading it.


You have not offered any empirical evidence, just a link to micro evolution.

You didn't specify that I had to provide "evidence" for microevolution to macroevolution... you just said "evolution", and I gave you some links and recommended some things you could look up to indicate that evolution does exist. It's not my fault that you didn't specify. Secondly, in most cases... posting evidence for micro to macro is irrelevant because they rely on the same evolutionary principles.


Nothing, just a journey of faith, there is no evidence micro turns into macro, off you go I will be here

The evidence suggests otherwise, but you can continue on your path of willful ignorance. I hope if you ever have children you don't tout the nonsense that you have been touting on here. They deserve better than that..
edit on 8-8-2016 by logicsoda because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   
And then the main problem with "The Theory of Evolution" - It is meaningless


No reason is given for why biological life exists on the Planet Earth when most of what we know about the universe and
physics and the operation of the universe shows no requirement for biological life, sex or Evolution.

By itself Evolution is a process of unintelligent design - it is occurring, if it is occurring for no reason - And yes that fits into the paradigm of those who want meaninglessness as the root of existence.

Survival of the fittest you say? - Fittest for what? - So they can end up on an internet forum and repeat the same senseless
arguments over and over again for no purpose whatsoever !

So maybe we should change this debate to the theory on Unintelligent Design - The theory that no intelligence backs existence ! - The theory that stupidity and meaninglessness is at the root of all that exists


Yes, if that is what you want to prove you are making a believer out of me





“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
― Max Planck

edit on 9-8-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
And then the main problem with "The Theory of Evolution" - It is meaningless



That's a personal problem people need to deal with.

I don't think anyone wants meaningless as the root of existence.
However if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Of course, that doesn't really apply here. The catholic's have accepted evolution and just added genesis to the ever growing list of bible verses to be taken figuratively.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join